coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Šarišské Bohdanovce.
5.  On 3 October 1994 the applicant and twenty-three other persons instituted civil proceedings before the Košice I District Court which concerned the use of a plot of land which they owned.
6.  By judgment of 7 August 2008 and a decision of 24 November 2008 the Košice I District Court granted an easement to the defendant who owns the sport facility on the plaintiffs’ land (proceedings file no. 15 C 792/94). It decided to determine the compensation which the defendant was to pay to the plaintiffs in a separate set of proceedings. On 20 April 2009 the Košice Regional Court upheld the above first-instance judgment and decision. They became final on 19 May 2009.
7.  On 25 June 2009 the applicant complained to the President of the Košice I District Court about delays in the proceedings. The complaint indicated that, after the judgment of 7 August 2008, the issue of compensation still remained to be determined in a different set of proceedings.
8.  In a reply dated 25 August 2009 and delivered on 31 August 2009 the President of the Košice I District Court informed the applicant that the issue of compensation for easement could be effectively dealt with only after the final effect of the judgment of 7 August 2008. Measures were being taken with a view to determining the issue in the separate set of proceedings.
9.  In the meantime, on 7 August 2009, the applicant filed a complaint to the Constitutional Court. He alleged that in proceedings file no. 15 C 792/94 the Košice I District Court had breached his right to a hearing within a reasonable time. In his complaint the applicant indicated that, after the appeal court’s judgment of 20 April 2009, compensation for the easement remained to be determined. He further submitted that the case was still being dealt with under file no. 15 C 792/94 and that he had received no reply to his complaint of 25 June 2009 addressed to the President of the District Court.
10.  On 2 September 2009 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint. It held that the proceedings complained of, namely those concerning the Košice I District Court file no. 15 C 792/94, had ended with final effect on 19 May 2009. The complaint in that respect had been filed belatedly.
11.  The Constitutional Court noted the applicant’s argument that the compensation issue remained to be determined in a separate set of proceedings. However, the applicant had failed to comply with the formal requirements in that respect as he had not indicated the file number of those proceedings. It was not for the Constitutional Court to remedy such shortcomings as the applicant was represented by a lawyer.
12.  The proceedings concerning the outstanding issue were entered in the Košice I District Court’s electronic registration system under file no. 23 C 221/2009 and assigned to a judge on 14 October 2009. They are pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Thessaloniki.
6.  On 16 January 2009 he was arrested by the Greek police for drug trafficking and criminal charges were brought against him.
7.  On 21 January 2009, with the concurring opinion of the Prosecutor of the Criminal Court of Thessaloniki, the investigating judge remanded him in custody with effect from 16 January 2009, the date of his arrest (order no. 4/2009).
8.  Subsequently, the applicant was transferred to the premises of the Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters.
9.  On 26 January 2009 he lodged an application with the Indictment Division of the Thessaloniki Criminal Court, according to Article 285 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging his provisional detention. He also included in his application a request to appear personally before the Indictment Division to support his request for release.
10. On 14 May 2009 the Indictment Division of the Thessaloniki Criminal Court – after hearing the prosecutor – dismissed the application (order no. 506/2009). No reference was made to the applicant’s request to appear in person before the Indictment Division. It was noted that the evidence gathered during the investigation of the case confirmed that the applicant was selling drugs on a commercial basis. Further it was considered that, taking into account the circumstances of the case, the provisional detention of the applicant was lawful, since it was likely that the applicant would commit more crimes if released.
11.  Subsequently, on 25 June 2009, by order no. 700/2009, the Indictment Division of the Thessaloniki Criminal Court decided to extend the applicant’s detention until 16 January 2010. No information was provided as to whether the applicant is still in detention.
12.  Between 16 January and 22 April 2009 the applicant was detained at the Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters.
13.  He claims that the conditions of detention there were deplorable. In particular, he notes the lack of sanitary products and sleeping facilities. He submitted that the detention area was overcrowded, with poor ventilation and insufficient natural light. In particular, the applicant noted that there were ten inmates per cell, which was over two times its design capacity. Some detainees were forced to sleep on the floor. There was no space to walk around. The cells and sanitary facilities were dirty. The poor quality of the food offered forced inmates to order food from outside. The prisoners had no opportunity to see doctors, even though some were affected by infectious diseases and others were drug users suffering from withdrawal.
14.  In particular, as far as the lack of medical care is concerned, the applicant stressed that he has been drug-addicted for many years and he submitted a medical certificate to support his allegation. In this connection, he claimed that he was deprived of sufficient pharmaceutical treatment and regular supervision by a physician.
15.  On 22 April 2009 the applicant was transferred to Diavata Prison.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Sredniy Urgal, a village in the Khabarovsk region.
5.  In 2004 the applicant lodged a court action against a private company seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of actions of company’s employees.
6.  On 7 July 2004 Verkhnebureinskiy District Court (Khabarovsk Region) dismissed the applicant’s action as unfounded.
7.  The applicant appealed against the judgment of 7 July 2004. His statement of appeal was received by the District Court on 21 July 2004.
8.  On 4 August 2004 the District Court sent the case file, with the applicant’s appeal statement enclosed, to the Khabarovsk Regional Court (“the Regional Court”). On the same day the District Court sent a letter to the applicant confirming that his case had been transferred to the Regional Court and informing him that an appeal hearing had been scheduled for 10.00 a.m. on 12 August 2004. It follows from the stamp marks on the envelope that the letter was dispatched on 5 August 2004 and arrived at the applicant’s local post office on 9 August 2004.
9.  On 12 August 2004 the Regional Court held a hearing, which the applicant did not attend. The Regional Court upheld the judgment of 7 July 2004, endorsing the District Court’s reasoning. The company’s representative attended the appeal hearing and made submissions.
10.  On 19 August 2004 the head of the post office replied to the applicant’s complaint about the delays in delivery of mail that the District Court’s letter of 4 August 2004 had been delivered to the applicant only on 16 August 2004 by the fault of one of the employees of the post office.
11.  On 27 September 2004 the Regional Court sent to the applicant a copy of the judgment of 12 August 2004.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Yugorsk, a town in the Tyumen region.
5.  On 29 May 2002 the applicant brought a court action against his former employer seeking compensation for damage to health related to professional hardship.
6.  On 29 November 2004 Yugorskiy District Court (Khanty-Mansiyskiy Region) dismissed his claim as manifestly ill-founded.
7.  On 14 December 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of 29 November 2004.
8.  According to the Government, on 30 December 2004 the District Court sent a letter to the applicant informing him that the appeal hearing had been scheduled for 8 February 2005.
9.  On 8 February 2005 the Khanty-Mansiyskiy Regional Court held a hearing which the applicant did not attend. The adverse party’s representative attended the hearing and made submissions. The Regional Court upheld the judgment of 29 November 2004.
10.  On an unspecified date the applicant applied for a supervisory review of the appeal decision of 8 February 2005.
11.  By a decision of 14 March 2005 a judge of the Regional Court refused to examine his application on the grounds that the enclosed copy of the appeal decision of 8 February 2005 had not been certified by the relevant court.
5.  In February 1994 the Hungarian National Bank authorised a private limited company (“the Company”) to issue payment cards to its customers. After 1995, however, purchase with such cards was no longer possible. Despite this fact, in 1996 the applicants concluded agreements with the Company for so-called “savings cards” in which they invested various amounts of money.
6.  In November 1996 bankruptcy proceedings were initiated against the Company and its insolvency was established in June 1997. The applicants recovered part of their investments through partial reimbursement by the Company. They sold their remaining claims against the Company to third parties.
7.  On 26 October 1998 three hundred and thirty private individuals, including the applicants, who were all represented by one law firm, brought an official liability action against the Hungarian National Bank before the Budapest Regional Court. They claimed that the respondent had not exercised its supervisory duties over the Company, therefore making it possible for the applicants to conclude the above-mentioned agreements which had resulted in substantial losses.
8.  On 11 January 2001 the Regional Court dismissed their action, finding that the respondent had no duty of supervision according to the relevant domestic legislation.
9.  On 28 January 2003 the Supreme Court, acting as a second-instance court, quashed the Regional Court’s decision and remitted the case to the first instance court due to the incomplete findings of fact.
10.  In the resumed proceedings the Budapest Regional Court found for the applicants on 6 December 2005. It established that the Company had unlawfully overstepped the boundaries of its activities, which had been known to the respondent; nevertheless, the latter could not prove that it had fulfilled its supervisory duties in this respect.
11.  On 26 October 2006 the Budapest Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal. It acknowledged that there were omissions on the respondent’s side. However, since the applicants had already sold their claims to third parties, the court held that they could have no substantive claims whatsoever in the circumstances.
12.  The applicants lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. It upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision on 5 June 2007, finding that the latter decision had been in compliance with the law.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Žalec.
5.  On 21 May 1997 the applicant, employed as a teacher in a music school, instituted proceedings before the Celje Labour Court seeking the annulment of a decision on the classification in a pay grade.
6.  On 1 February 2000 the first hearing was held.
7.  After two more hearings, on 24 March 2000 the first-instance court delivered a judgment rejecting the applicant’s request. He appealed.
8.  On 7 December 2001 the Higher Labour and Social Court upheld his appeal and remitted the case for re-examination.
9.  On 11 June 2002 the first-instance court delivered a judgment rejecting his request. He appealed.
10.  On 26 February 2004 the second instance court rejected his appeal. He lodged an appeal on points of law.
11.  On 11 January 2005 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal. He lodged a constitutional complaint.
12.  On 17 March 2006 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint as unsubstantiated. The decision was served on the applicant on 21 March 2006.
13.  On 7 September 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Celje Labour Court seeking the annulment of a decision on the classification in a pay grade and requesting for the two proceedings to be joined.
14.  On 10 December 2002 the first hearing was held. The first-instance court rejected the request for joining the proceedings and delivered a judgment rejecting the applicant’s claim. He appealed.
15.  On 15 April 2004 the Higher Labour and Social Court rejected his appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 28 May 2004.
5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Mozirje.
6.  On 2 December 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court challenging a decision rejecting his claim for disability insurance.
7.  On 9 June 2005 the first hearing was held and the court delivered a judgment, rejecting the applicant’s request in whole. He appealed.
8.  On 23 March 2006 the Higher Labour and Social Court upheld the appeal and remitted the case for re-examination.
9.  Between 15 June 2006 and 19 October 2006 three hearings were held and the court appointed one expert.
10.  On 19 October 2006 the first-instance court delivered a judgment. The defendant appealed.
11.  On 1 March 2007 the Higher Labour and Social Court upheld the appeal in part and modified the first-instance judgment. This decision was served on the applicant on 3 April 2007.
5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Škofja Loka.
6.  On 4 April 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana District Court seeking compensation for damages sustained in an accident at the workplace.
7.  On 27 September 2002 the parties were directed to solve the dispute through mediation. The mediation was unsuccessful and an order to return the file to the first-instance court was issued on 17 January 2003.
8.  On 9 November 2004 the court held the first hearing.
9.  Between 14 December 2004 and 4 October 2005 three hearings were held and an expert appointed. At the last hearing the court delivered an interim judgment, reserving the decision on the amount of compensation to the final judgment. Both parties appealed.
10.  On 25 October 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld both appeals and remitted the case for re-examination.
11.  On 7 December 2006 the first-instance court held a hearing.
12.  On 9 March 2007 the first-instance court issued a decision on termination of proceedings, following an out-of court settlement reached between the parties.
5.  The applicants were born in 1946 and 1940 respectively. They are husband and wife and live in Velenje.
6.  On 26 January 2001 the applicants instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana District Court seeking compensation for damages sustained in a car accident.
7.  Between 6 May 2003 and 5 May 2005 three hearings were held and one expert appointed. At the last hearing the first-instance court rendered a judgment rejecting the applicants’ request. They appealed.
8.  On 15 February 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the appeal. The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law.
9.  On 6 November 2008 the Supreme Court rendered a decision and remitted the case for re-examination before the first-instance. The decision was served on the applicants’ representative on 5 December 2008.
10.  On 19 December 2008 a notice of the forthcoming hearing was sent to the applicants.
11.  The hearing was held on 2 February 2009 and the first-instance court rendered a judgment on the same day. The judgment was served on the applicants on 13 March 2009.
5.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Ljubečna.
6.  On 14 February 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against her brother before the Ljubljana District Court seeking the reimbursement of costs for taking care of their mother, which in accordance with a signed agreement was a shared responsibility of both.
7.  On 8 July 2000 the first-instance court held an opening hearing.
8.  On 3 October 2002 a hearing was held and a judgment delivered. The applicant’s request was rejected. She appealed.
9.  On 22 January 2003 the Ljubljana Higher Court delivered a judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.
10.  On 29 May 2003 a hearing was cancelled on the request of the applicant.
11.  Between 16 June 2003 and 6 October 2003 two hearings were held. At the last hearing the first-instance court delivered a judgment upholding the applicant’s request in part. An appeal was lodged.
12.  On 2 March 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court delivered a judgment upholding the first-instance judgment in part and remitting the question on the amount of interests for re-examination.
13.  On 5 July 2005 a hearing was cancelled on the request of the applicant, since the defendant had paid the amount due.
14.  On 12 July 2005 the first-instance court issued a decision on partial withdrawal of the claim and on the amount of costs of proceedings. An appeal was lodged.
15.  On 6 October 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 10 November 2005.
5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Sutomore.
6.  On 25 June 1991 the applicant was made redundant.
7.  On 29 June 1991 and on 2 December 1993 the applicant filed two claims seeking reinstatement and compensation, one against his former employer, and one against the institution which, in the meantime, had taken over the functions from his former employer (Republički zavod za geodetske i imovinskopravne poslove; hereinafter “the Institution”).
8.  On 28 February 1994 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Bar ruled against the applicant upon his claim against the Institution.
9.  On 27 May 1994 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica overturned this judgment and ruled in favour of the applicant.
10.  On 9 November 1994 the two sets of proceedings were joined into a single lawsuit. On the same day the Court of First Instance in Bar ruled in respect of the claim against the former employer, awarding the applicant damages. This judgment became final (pravosnažna) in January 1995. The proceedings against the Institution continued.
11.  On 30 May 1995 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) in Podgorica quashed the two judgments rendered in respect of the Institution (see paragraphs 8 and 9 above) and ordered a re-trial.
12.  It would appear that on 8 December 1999 the Court of First Instance in Bar rendered a decision that the applicant’s claim had been withdrawn (tužba povučena), which decision was apparently quashed by the High Court in Podgorica on 16 May 2000.
13.  On 27 February 2006 the Court of First Instance in Bar ruled against the applicant.
14.  On 4 November 2008 the High Court in Podgorica upheld this judgment.
15.  On 16 June 2009 the Supreme Court in Podgorica dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law (revizija).
4.  The applicants were born in 1975, 1930 and 1927 respectively. Mr Iliya Atanasov Tonov and Ms Vatka Markova Udvareva live in Sofia and Ms Pena Marinova Karalakova lives in Tryavna.
5.  In 1968 the second applicant, Ms Udvareva, and her husband bought from the Sofia municipality a flat of 97 square metres, which had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria after 1947.
6.  On 18 March 1998, following a renewal of the time-limit to bring an action under section 7 of the Restitution Law, the pre-nationalisation owner of the flat brought such an action against Ms Udvareva and her husband, seeking to establish that their title was null and void.
7.  While the proceedings were pending, Ms Udvareva’s husband deceased. His grandson, Mr Iliya Atanasov Tonov – the first applicant, inherited his share of the flat. Thus, after that Ms Tonov and Ms Udvareva owned one half of the flat each. Accordingly, Mr Tonov also joined the civil proceedings.
8.  The proceedings ended by a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 23 April 2007. The domestic courts found that Ms Udvareva and Mr Tonov’s title was null and void ab initio: the flat’s sale in 1968 had been flawed because a document related to it had not been signed by the municipality official with whom the relevant power had been vested.
9.  On an unspecified date Ms Udvareva, who was at the time living alone in the flat, vacated it.
10.  On 20 September 2007 Ms Udvareva and Mr Tonov requested to receive compensation bonds. However, their request was dismissed as it had not been made within two months following the Supreme Court of Cassation’s final judgment of 23 April 2007, as provided for under domestic law.
11.  The relevant background facts, domestic law and practice have been summarised in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007) and Tsonkovi v. Bulgaria (no. 27213/04, §§ 14-15, 2 July 2009).
4.  The applicant was born in 1990 and lives in Maribor.
5.  On 20 August 1999 the applicant through guardian instituted proceedings against her father before the Maribor District Court seeking an increase in alimony.
6.  On 11 October 2000 the first-instance court held the first hearing. A hearing scheduled for 8 December 2000 was postponed at the applicant’s request and was held subsequently on 16 February 2001.
7.  On 22 May 2001 the first-instance court rendered a judgment upholding the applicant’s request in part by increasing the amount of alimony. The defendant appealed.
8.  On 27 November 2001 the Maribor Higher Court upheld the appeal and remitted the case for re-examination.
9.  On 8 May 2002 the first-instance court held a hearing.
10.  On 30 May 2002 the first-instance court issued a judgment upholding the applicant’s request in part. The defendant appealed.
11.  On 19 November 2002 the appeal court rendered a judgment and remitted the case once more for re-examination. The court found that the operative part of the first-instance judgment was not clear and the judgment insufficiently reasoned in some parts.
12.  Further to the remittal the Maribor District Court held two hearings on 27 October 2004 and 13 July 2005.
13.  After the last hearing the court rendered a judgment upholding the applicant’s request. The defendant appealed.
14.  On 11 April 2006 the Maribor Higher Court rejected the appeal.